Literature DB >> 30285977

Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

René H Gifford1, Michael F Dorman2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy.
DESIGN: This study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?"
RESULTS: This study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30285977      PMCID: PMC6447482          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  72 in total

1.  Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant.

Authors:  P Schleich; P Nopp; P D'Haese
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: real-world versus simulation.

Authors:  Cynthia L Compton-Conley; Arlene C Neuman; Mead C Killion; Harry Levitt
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  A meta-analysis to compare speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation.

Authors:  Erin C Schafer; Amyn M Amlani; Daniele Paiva; Ladan Nozari; Sybil Verret
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Effects of interaural time differences in fine structure and envelope on lateral discrimination in electric hearing.

Authors:  Piotr Majdak; Bernhard Laback; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Interaural time and level difference thresholds for acoustically presented signals in post-lingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants using CIS+ processing.

Authors:  D Wesley Grantham; Daniel H Ashmead; Todd A Ricketts; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

7.  Interaural level differences and sound source localization for bilateral cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Louise Loiselle; Josh Stohl; William A Yost; Anthony Spahr; Chris Brown; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study.

Authors:  Ruth Litovsky; Aaron Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli; Carol Sammeth
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Localization and speech understanding by a patient with bilateral cochlear implants and bilateral hearing preservation.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Louise Loiselle; Ting Zhang; Sarah Cook; Chris Brown; William Yost
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

2.  Changes in Acoustic Absorbance Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Jordan M Racca; Laura L Jones; Robert T Dwyer; Mary Ferguson; Linsey Sunderhaus; Linda J Hood; René H Gifford
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 1.636

3.  Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Justin T Fleming; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 2.482

4.  Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Bimodal Hearing for Children with Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  René H Gifford
Journal:  Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep       Date:  2020-10-02

5.  Frequency Following Response and Speech Recognition Benefit for Combining a Cochlear Implant and Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Authors:  David M Kessler; Saradha Ananthakrishnan; Spencer B Smith; Kristen D'Onofrio; René H Gifford
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Jing Zhang; Hongwei Ding; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2020-04-17

7.  The Relationship Between Impedance, Programming and Word Recognition in a Large Clinical Dataset of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Benjamin Caswell-Midwinter; Elizabeth M Doney; Meisam K Arjmandi; Kelly N Jahn; Barbara S Herrmann; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Emotional Responses to Non-Speech Sounds for Hearing-aid and Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Marina M Tawdrous; Kristen L D'Onofrio; René Gifford; Erin M Picou
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

9.  Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?

Authors:  Sarah Nyirjesy; Cole Rodman; Terrin N Tamati; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.619

10.  Musical Emotion Perception in Bimodal Patients: Relative Weighting of Musical Mode and Tempo Cues.

Authors:  Kristen L D'Onofrio; Meredith Caldwell; Charles Limb; Spencer Smith; David M Kessler; René H Gifford
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 4.677

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.